I've been meaning to post this for a really long time, but for some reason, I never got around to it.
With the whole 9/11 commission thing going on, there's a lot of talk about which administration is to blame for the attack. The left wants to blame Bush because it happened while he was in office, and the right wants to blame Clinton because he had 8 years to do something about it, while Dubya had 8 months.
However, a lot of liberals won't accept that Clinton knew about bin Laden, and they act like the "warning" Bush received was the first sign that Osama wanted to attack the U.S. So, should Bush be blamed because he supposedly knew there was a threat a whole month in advance?
Well, I want to answer that with a story: In 1999, I was in 8th grade. In my geography class, the teacher started talking about terrorism for some reason. He eventually mentioned this one terrorist who he said, if I'm remembering correctly, was "the most dangerous one in the world right now." Unfortunately, I couldn't remember the terrorist's name.
Then 9/11 happened, and when I heard the name "Osama bin Laden," I immediately remebered my geography teacher's lesson, because he had been talking about the same person.
So, in 1999, we already knew that bin Laden was dangerous. What did Clinton do?
Not much of anything.
I don't know if that proves much, but I thought I'd share it.Posted by CD on April 9, 2004 03:27 PM